Punjab and Haryana HC upholds compulsory retirement of judicial officer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday upheld the premature retirement of a Punjab Additional District and Sessions Judge after concluding that the Full Court exercised its discretion in public interest and within the bounds of law.

“It emerges that the Full Court having duly considered the petitioner’s service record in its entirety has exercised its discretion within the bounds of law. Ergo, the writ petition in hand deserves rejection,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel ruled while dismissing the petition filed by Mehar Singh Rattu.

The judicial officer was seeking the quashing of the Full Court’s recommendation dated September 21, 2000, and order dated October 10, 2000, passed by the Punjab Government prematurely retiring him from service.

Sitting during the summer vacation, the Bench noted that the retirement order was clearly passed in “public interest”. Interference in such matters was limited as the competent authority enjoyed exclusive discretion based on subjective satisfaction about an employee’s continued utility to public service.

Elaborating, the Bench asserted that a granular examination of the order dated October 10, 2000, revealed that the petitioner was directed to undergo compulsory retirement in “public interest”. The phrase was inherently broad and fell within the exclusive domain of the competent authority, whose subjective satisfaction was not ordinarily subject to judicial review.

“The scope of judicial intervention in such matters is inherently limited, as writ court is not expected to substitute its own opinion for that of the authority vested with the discretion to assess whether an employee’s continuation in service is conducive to the great public cause,” it said.

Examining the petitioner’s service record, the Bench observed that the officer did not have an unblemished record throughout. “It is not a case where the service record has remained unblemished throughout. The service record of the petitioner reflects that there have been multiple adverse remarks against him during the course of his service. The remarks are not only spread over different years of his service tenure, but also have been recorded by different Administrative Judges,” the Bench asserted.

The court noted that even the dropping of a chargesheet, accompanied by a recordable warning to remain careful in future, would not ipso facto absolve the petitioner.

“The adverse remarks or advisory or recordable warning made against the petitioner cannot wash off such lapses so as to render them otiose for consideration of the petitioner for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years,” the Bench ruled.